I think it legitimizes them when people treat them like they're normal humans with valid opinions that merit some kind of civil debate rather than a solid punch in the head.

So you are advocating the way the Nazis took power in Germany.

lol @ how stupid liberals are

That is a stupid comment. Because the Nazi's took power largely through winning democratically-held elections, though without winning a majority in Parliament, via the use of propaganda and by saying one thing to urban voters, another thing to workers, another thing to industrialists, and yet something else to rural voters.

Between the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 and coming to power in July 1932, Nazi's used violence primarily against the paramilitary units of the Rotfrontkämpferbund and the KPD, their existential enemies, the political parties on the radical left. Nazi violence in the days before the July 1932 election was against the Communist paramilitary.

Their streetfighting was was not the deciding factor in their slim parliamentary victory in the federal election of July 1932, which is what first brought them into power.

Please don't respond by explaining the "difference" between "taking power" and "winning power." Go study some German history and then stab yourself in the face.

I'm all for escalating, basically, rudeness. I might have mentioned this before, but someone somewhere said that we're more socialized to react to breaches in etiquette than to actual injustice. And I mean everyone. There are all kinds of just loathsome shitstains walking around among us skating along, aided by our aversion to rudeness, and that needs to stop right now.

So my personal policy is something like this:

If someone is just plain ignorant, I am going to do my best to tell them instead of just ignoring them or changing the topic, which is what I would normally do.

If someone is being straight racist or sexist or xenophobic, I am going to tell them to fuck off. Any n-bombs get f-bombs, especially if it's someone's granny. There's a specific subset of pearl clutching schoolmarms who like to play like they're shocked just shocked at people addressing them impolitely when they endorse disgusting, racist, sexist ideas. They don't get to do that anymore. You got get to vote for that guy and then act all shocked and chide people when they offend your sense of decorum. They no longer have any legitimate claim to decorum.

Literally advocating genocide isn't just speech. It's an incitement to horrific violence, and it should be treated as such. If someone is displaying a swastika or other Nazi imagery in public, or if, like Spencer, they're a known advocate for genocide, I consider that violence, and I consider it totally appropriate to punch that person. I don't think it should be legal to punch them, but I would be A-OK with adopting more European style laws regarding Nazi sympathizing and Holocaust denial, and possibly extending some to confederate imagery as well. But I am in favor of illegally punching people in the head for Nazi-ing in public and I would not cooperate in any investigation into Nazi punching if I were to witness it. (Just this minute, I switched tabs and looked at my news headlines, and they had to evacuate a nearby Jewish community center because of a bomb threat. Again.)

But I'm also pretty heartened by how little violence there has been at the protests so far. The Womens Marches were huge, and there was probably less violence in those areas than there would have been on a normal day. For the most part, people aren't just running around physically attacking people for no reason, and I would not be for that if they were.

I am very specifically in favor of punching Nazis, because punching is the least violent type of communication that works on them. It makes them shut the fuck up, it makes them run away, and it makes them afraid to advocate Nazi ideology in the future. And if you let them speak without fear of punching, it sends a powerful message to other racists and wannabe edgelords that Nazi ideologies are on the spectrum of normal, appropriate ideas.

The Overton window is jammed, and it needs a few solid punches to close it right now.

So is this particular concern troll that because people use Nazi as a metaphor and an intensifier, the concept of actual, real live, genocide endorsing Nazis is now meaningless? People are going to go around punching everyone, including soup-, grammar-, and feminazis, and there's really no way to endorse punching Nazis without enabling that?

There was this song by The Specials about racist violence and nazis where they refer to them as sheep in wolf clothes. I always thought that was a pretty good description. They act tough in groups but they're mostly cowards in person.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who are raising moral objections are approaching it like a hypothetical. I've seen people who seem to believe that punching "Nazis" means punching people who have been metaphorically referred to as Nazis, and that there are no actual Nazis left to punch, because to their knowledge, they've never encountered them.

And of course, the reason they think of Nazis as fictional bad guys and harmless edgelords or whatever is that there are people who are able and willing to punch them whenever they poke their heads out, and the little chickenshits go back underground. As long as there are more of us than there are of them, they can be punched back into submission. They're popping up again now because they're fucking dumb and they think they're the majority. They cannot be reasoned with or hippied into loving everyone.

So if you haven't encountered Nazis in the wild, you should be thanking the Nazi punchers who've made it possible for you to assume this is some sort of hypothetical.

As the daughter of a WWII vet, I want to point out that punching Nazis doesn't mean you like punching, or violence. It means accepting that Nazis need to be punched and sometimes Nazis need to be killed, even if you spend the rest of your life hating yourself for doing it.

__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette

This morning's Breaking News email from History News Network poasted a link to this article in Mother Jones:

Quote:

The Long History of "Nazi Punching"

Video of an assault on a white nationalist marks the return of an age-old conflict.

WES ENZINNA JAN. 26, 2017 12:53 PM

By now many have seen the video of an unidentified man punching white nationalist Richard Spencer in the face during inauguration weekend. Much in the way that the new president's vicious campaign rhetoric gave voice to the deeper resentments of some of his supporters, the assault on Spencer seems to have offered a cathartic and even comedic outlet for those on the left who were angered by thoughts of Trumpians goose-stepping through the streets of DC as Trump entered the White House...

The attack on Spencer is part of a perennial conflict that may again be escalating. For decades, far-right extremists have faced the militant wrath of "antifas" (short for anti-fascists). With Trump's campaign having summoned all sorts of white supremacists and other trolls from under their bridges, the old war—which I first got a front-row glimpse into a decade ago—appears ready to re-ignite.

This beef goes back to before World War II, when in Europe, a nascent authoritarian movement inspired by Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco squared off against a popular front coalition of liberals and radicals. At the Battle of Cable Street, in October 1936, Oswald Mosley brought 2,000 members of his British Union of Fascists to march through London's Jewish East End neighborhood and 100,000 anti-fascists showed up to oppose them. In the resulting melee, Jews, Irishmen, Communists, anarchists, and socialists beat Mosley's men with sticks, rocks, and sawed-off chair-legs. Local women dumped their chamber pots out of windows onto the heads of Mosley's men...

Don't forget to punch a Communist in the head. They did some pretty evil shit, too. Save some knuckles for Western Capitalists (i think i have stock in them ) for all the people who have been oppressed and murdered to make way for money and easy living. While you're at it you should aggressively silence opinions you don't agree with. Just call them dangerous and you'll feel all righteous about doing it.

Between the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 and coming to power in July 1932, Nazi's used violence primarily against the paramilitary units of the Rotfrontkämpferbund and the KPD, their existential enemies, the political parties on the radical left. Nazi violence in the days before the July 1932 election was against the Communist paramilitary.

Ohh, so you mean they did use violence.

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

While you're at it you should aggressively silence opinions you don't agree with. Just call them dangerous and you'll feel all righteous about doing it.

No, you have it wrong. They are saying the speech itself is violence, the speech is rape. This is really what they are indoctrinating the idiot class to think.

See, their violent response to speech is now acceptable when speech is redefined as rape.

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

The vast majority of the people advocating this don't even realize that their desired social system is most of the Nazi party platform.

You people will agree with probably 9 out of 10 things in the Nazi platform, lol @ the ignorant so easily lead.

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Between the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 and coming to power in July 1932, Nazi's used violence primarily against the paramilitary units of the Rotfrontkämpferbund and the KPD, their existential enemies, the political parties on the radical left. Nazi violence in the days before the July 1932 election was against the Communist paramilitary.

Ohh, so you mean they did use violence.

Not to win the election, which they did without resorting to violence but by lying and telling everyone what they wanted to hear

Which was the point.

But changing the subject to something else when you are wrong is your super power. gz, gz.

The liberals are not using violence to win an election, they are using violence as a protest against the outcome of a recent election.

Next time you think you have a 'gotcha', reread what was written, then review your facts, then you will not look as foolish next time.

Btw, what percentage of the Nazi platform do you agree with?

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

'Between [...] 1923 and coming to power in July 1932, Nazi's used violence ...'

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.